South Africa Case Law

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another v Discovery Connect Distribution Services and Others (J930/24)

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another v Discovery Connect Distribution Services and Others (J930/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 285 (3 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J930/24

Judge

G Mafa-Chali

The Court found that the respondents had partially complied with the CCMA disclosure ruling and provided a reasonable and plausible explanation for any missing documents and audio recordings. The respondents demonstrated diligent efforts to locate and supply the requested materials, and the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents' non-compliance was wilful or mala fide. The Court held that the respondents cannot be compelled to produce information not in their possession and that mere dissatisfaction with the format or completeness of disclosure does not establi…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Ccma Ruling
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Wilfulness And Mala Fides
• Constructive Dismissal
• Arbitration Procedure

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (J930/24), Ex parte

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (J930/24), Ex parte [2025] ZALCJHB 12 (9 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J930/24

Judge

Ramji

The Labour Court held that a CCMA contempt referral may proceed ex parte and subpoenaed the employer and its representatives to show cause.

• Contempt Of Ccma Ruling
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Labour Court Practice Manual
• Labour Relations Act Section 142
• Motion Proceedings
• Ccma-contempt

Moolman v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA98/22)

Moolman v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA98/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 339 (22 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JA98/22

Judges

Molahlehi, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Jolwana

The Labour Appeal Court set aside an early review of a CCMA disclosure ruling, holding that the Labour Court should not have intervened in incomplete arbitration.

• Disclosure Of Documents
• Review Of Interlocutory Rulings
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Reasonable Expectation Of Renewal
• Ccma-discovery

Nabolisa v The Regional Court Magistrate and Another (568/2022)

Nabolisa v The Regional Court Magistrate and Another (568/2022) [2024] ZASCA 7 (19 January 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

568/2022

Judges

Zondi, Mokgohloa, Nhlangulela

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's fair trial rights were not infringed. The forensic evidence was properly admitted, and the appellant, though legally represented, chose not to challenge the evidence or testify. The working papers were disclosed upon request, and the alleged procedural irregularities did not vitiate the proceedings. The expert evidence led by the defence was correctly rejected as lacking scientific basis and relevant experience. The use of inappropriate language by the prosecutor was not prejudicial. The conviction and sentence were based on credible evid…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Forensic Evidence
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Review Of Conviction
• Constitutional Rights

Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-042792)

Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-042792) [2024] ZAGPPHC 6 (5 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-042792

Judge

de Vos

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as moot because the documents at issue have already been disclosed to Altron and are now in the public domain, making any appeal academic and without practical effect. The court is bound by precedent from the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court, which have held that appeals in such circumstances are moot. The decision on urgency is procedural and not appealable, and even if it were, no case has been made that it would be in the interests of justice to grant leave. Brilliant Tel's conduct in opposing the further affidavit and engagi…

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality In Tender Proceedings
• Interlocutory Orders
• Mootness
• Punitive Costs
• Urgency
• Disclosure Of Documents

Technology Corporate Management (Pty) Ltd v Moue and Others (J 186/23)

Technology Corporate Management (Pty) Ltd v Moue and Others (J 186/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 71 (12 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 186/23

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to stay CCMA arbitration pending review of interlocutory rulings, finding the urgency self-created and the relief unjustified.

• Stay Of Arbitration
• Urgent Interdict
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling
• Self Created Urgency
• Labour-law

South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2642/2019)

South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 2642/2019) [2021] ZALCJHB 23 (1 March 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 2642/2019

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the arbitrator committed a material error of law by ordering disclosure of the investigation report on the basis of relevance. The investigation report was not used in the disciplinary enquiry and would not be relied upon in the arbitration proceedings. The substantive reasons for dismissal were provided by the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing and had already been disclosed to the employees. The report was therefore irrelevant to the determination of the fairness of the dismissals in the arbitration. As relevance is the sole criterion for disclosure under CCMA rule…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure Of Documents
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Ccma Rule 29
• Unfair Dismissal
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitration Procedure

Chard v Old Mutual Insure Limited (A66/2017)

Chard v Old Mutual Insure Limited (A66/2017) [2019] ZAKZDHC 23; [2020] 1 All SA 381 (KZD) (30 September 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A66/2017

Judge

Lopes

The court found that Old Mutual had not satisfied the requirements for invoking litigation privilege over the expert reports and correspondence. The evidence did not establish that the reports were obtained for the definite purpose of obtaining legal advice in circumstances where litigation was likely or reasonably anticipated. The initial involvement of Old Mutual was cooperative, and litigation was not contemplated until much later. The respondent failed to demonstrate the necessary intention or linkage to legal advice at the relevant time. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to the dis…

Source excerpt

• Litigation Privilege
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Insurance Claims
• Expert Evidence

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (5867/2013)

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (5867/2013) [2018] ZAKZPHC 78 (11 September 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5867/2013

Judge

Mnguni

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal with costs, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons under section 17(1)(a).

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Leave To Appeal
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Leave-to-appeal
• Superior-courts-act

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Anglo American Platinum Ltd and Others (J1833/18)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Anglo American Platinum Ltd and Others (J1833/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 238; [2018] 11 BLLR 1110 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2280 (LC) (2 July 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1833/18

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the contracts of employment, in all their iterations, grant Rusplats the prerogative to determine and change the retirement fund for its employees. The language of the contracts, supported by the employment manual and the rules of the AGPF, clearly allows the employer to nominate a different fund and require employees to transfer. The union's construction was inconsistent with statutory context and would lead to insensible results. The wage agreement's peace obligation does not preclude Rusplats from effecting changes permitted by contract, nor does it impose limitations…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreements
• Unilateral Change Of Employment Terms
• Retirement Fund Transfer
• Peace Obligation
• Duty To Bargain
• Disclosure Of Documents